Quote:
Originally Posted by Champlain Islander
We need to stay out of there...period. Nothing but bad will come of initiating a no fly zone or other small military operation. We went to Afghanistan and are still there. Next it was Iraq and we are still there although not in active combat anymore. We have periodically spilled over into the Pakistan/ Afghanistan border region which continues to pose a problem especially since Pakistan is supposed to be an ally. What is happening in Egypt and Libya is civil war which is their business not ours. We are spending huge amounts of money over there and continually losing troops all the while our own borders are being invaded daily. Time to take our world police action back to the states and protect the US.
|
I agree with Champlain Islander. Wasn't this a former French colony, like most of the rest of North Africa? Let them invest treasure and troops in that place. We've got our hands full in Afghanistan and possibly in the Far East -- North Korea has been rattling its sabre (just one, that is all they can afford, and it is made of wood) and China is surgent.
What is our rationale for getting involved? World peace? Support of democracy? I don't buy such altruistic reasons -- not for spending my tax money. What reason of state justifies this? I don't see any. Along these same lines, personally I support dialing back our military committments all over the world. Granted that is a separate discussion, but just to know where I stand on that. I would slowly pull out of South Korea and let the South Koreans take care of themselves. They have the $$$, and we can sell them any hardware they want. Maybe they won't kick our butt so resoundingly in consumer electronics, appliances, and cars. I would slowly pull out of ***an (we're still in Okinowa). Let the ***anese take care of themselves. I don't think we need to worry about the samuri class arising again and reinstituting emperor worship. We should pull out of the Philipenes: we've been there since 1898. I don't think we need to be the world's policeman. I think I can argue solidly that any purported benefits we derive from these points of presence are undermined by the costs in our treasure to maintain them, and consequently the weakening of our nation economically -- as in WE'RE BROKE Y'ALL!!! THE CHINESE OWN OUR MILITARY ANYWAY!!! (own by virtue of floating most of our deficit spending -- this is hyperbolic, of course, but I hope you get my sense) -- and the provocation of our supposed allies in these various places. Believe me, there are a lot of South Koreans who don't like the US presence there. Likewise in ***an. I suppose likewise in Germany.
And most especially, as Champlain Islander points out, why invest our efforts in these countries when we ourselves do not have control of our borders and there is a quasi-state of war and invasion along this border?
Is Hillary doing this so she can improve her cards at the table when she runs for president in 2012? Isn't this why she became Secretary of State in the first place, dropping her role as US Senator from New York? She's a Democrat and hence vulnerable to the accusation that she only focuses on domestic issues (see Obama, Clintoon, and Carter for supporting evidence). Remember her talking about "landing under fire" in the Bosnia area and how this back fired on her and made her look a little silly? A little combat management as Secretary of State would look good on her resume. Sure, we are in Afghanistan and that counts as a war or combat management, but it isn't her deal and it isn't looking very successful. She wants something she can own and something with limited goals that can be achieved in a period of time that suits her political ambitions. Of course, this is just my theory. Just an opinion. Actually, not even an opinion, more of a speculation.
Hillary pushing for military action in Libya.
